A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001. Purporting to support academic freedom (therefore calling them Academic Freedom bills), supporters have contended that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. An investigation in Florida of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's Louisiana Science Education Act, which was enacted in 2008.
Based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute, from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment, the common goal of these bills has been to expose more students to articles and videos that criticize evolution, most of which have been produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.
Santorum Amendment
In 2001 former Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania proposed an amendment, to the education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools. The language of this amendment was crafted in part by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, with Phillip E. Johnson, founding adviser of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and "father" of the intelligent design movement, assisting Santorum in phrasing the amendment., That language, which was penned by Phil Johnson for Rick Santorum, passed the Senate as an amendment to the No Child Left Behind education bill, and eventually became part of the conference report for that legislation. It portrayed evolution as generating "much continuing controversy" and being not widely accepted, using the Discovery Institute's Teach The Controversy method.
On June 14, 2001, the amendment was passed as part of the education funding bill by the Senate on a vote of 91-8. This was hailed as a major victory by proponents of intelligent design; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute contained the sentence "Undoubtedly this will change the face of the debate over the theories of evolution and intelligent design in America ... It also seems that the Darwinian monopoly on public science education, and perhaps the biological sciences in general, is ending."
Scientists and educators feared that by singling out biological evolution as very controversial, the amendment could create the impression that a substantial scientific controversy about evolution exists, leading to a lessening of academic rigor in science curricula. A coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations signed a letter urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, which it was, but intelligent design supporters on the conference committee preserved it in the bill's legislative history.
Overview
Rather than calling for teaching intelligent design or Bible-based creationism (as previous legislative attempts have), the bills make no mention of these subjects. They instead describe evolution as controversial and attempt to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe purported flaws in the theory. This runs contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus, which holds that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution: the only credible, and a thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development and diversification of all life on Earth.
Tom Hutton, a senior staff lawyer for the National School Boards Association, stated that while state legislators have a legal right to craft laws that affect districts' policies as a general rule, he believes that some decisions are better left to local officials. He further suggested that these proposed bills, if enacted, could face difficult legal challenges. He further stated that despite their language stating that they are not promoting religious views, and wording to promote "scientific" rather than religious critiques, courts are likely to question the motives behind these bills, and their specific focus on evolution, and draw a conclusion as to "what's going on here."
Michael Simpson, a lawyer for the National Education Association stated that courts have generally refused to afford significant free-speech protections to teachers for in-class remarks. He further offered the opinion that the legality of these measures would depend on a number of unknowns, such as how the critical views of evolution-critical views were presented, and possibly the degree of congruence between them and other state policies, such as state science curriculum.
A variety of groups, such as the National Center for Science Education and Anti-Defamation League, criticized and are publicly opposed to the "Academic Freedom bills."
Alabama bills Between 2004 and 2006, a series of unsuccessful anti-evolution 'Academic freedom' bills were introduced in the Alabama Legislature.
On April 8, 2004, the Alabama Senate unanimously passed SB336, the "Academic Freedom Act." The bill would have given teachers at public institutions "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of origins" and gives students the right to hold a "particular position on origins, so long as he or she demonstrates acceptable understanding of course materials." Before passage, it was amended so that "[t]he rights and privileges contained in this act do not apply to the presentation of theoretical information unless it is accompanied by scientific, historical, or evidentiary information." On May 17, 2004, the Alabama House adjourned the 2004 legislative session without voting on the bill, allowing it to lapse.
On February 8, 2005, a pair of virtually identical bills were simultaneously introduced in the Alabama Senate and House (HB352 and SB240), again under the description of "The Academic Freedom Act." These bills purported to protect the right of teachers "to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories" and the right of students to "hold positions regarding scientific views". In an attempt to avert Establishment Clause concerns, the bills both stated that "[n]othing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion." On April 5, 2005, a third, near-identical bill (also dubbed the "Academic Freedom Act") was introduced in the Alabama House (HB 716). On May 3, 2005, the legislative session closed without passing any of these three bills, so that they lapsed.
On January 10, 2006, another pair of identical anti-evolution bills (HB106 and SB45), closely resembling the previous bills, were introduced in the Alabama legislature, again under the description of "The Academic Freedom Act". On April 18, 2006 the Alabama Legislature again adjourned without passing them, again allowing them to lapse.
On April 24, 2008, David Grimes introduced an 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB 923) into the Alabama House and it was referred to the Education Policy Committee. It died in committee on May 7.
On February 3, 2009, Grimes introduced another 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB 300) which was again referred to the House Education Policy Committee. It died in committee with the end of the legislative session on May 15.
Arizona bills On December 11, 2025, Arizona State Senator Dave Farnsworth prefiled a bill for the 2026 Senate session (SB1025) that would bar instruction in evolution if not accompanied by concurrent instruction in intelligent design. In subsequent statements made to the press, Farnsworth clarified that he saw intelligent design as equivalent to creationism, saying, "If it were up to me, I would just call it creationism."
Oklahoma bills In early 2006 Representative Sally Kern introduced an anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB2107) into the Oklahoma House, which passed it by a vote of 77-10 on March 2, 2006. Also in 2006 Senator Daisy Lawler introduced another anti-evolution bill, based upon language in the Santorum Amendment, in the Oklahoma Senate. Both bills (and two further, unrelated, anti-evolution bills) lapsed with the end of the 2006 legislative session.
In February 2009 a bill titled the 'Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act' (SB 320) was introduced by Senator Randy Brogdon and died in committee the Oklahoma Senate. The bill is nearly identical to the Act passed in 2008 in Louisiana.
Maryland bill A bill (HB1531) was introduced into the Maryland House of Delegates on February 16, 2006, to enact a "Teachers Academic Freedom Act" and a "Faculty Academic Freedom Act", that closely resembled the 2006 Alabama bills. The bill lapsed with the end of the 2006 legislative session.
New Mexico bills In January 2007, two identical bills (HB 506 and SB 371) "relating to public education; providing for school science content standards and rules regarding the teaching of theories of biological origins" were introduced into the New Mexico Legislature and Senate by Representative W. C. "Dub" Williams and Senator Steve Komadina. The bills died with the end of legislative session on March 17, 2007.
In February 2009, an identical bill was again introduced, this time by Senator Kent L. Cravens in the New Mexico Senate. Although it does not mention the phrase "academic freedom", the National Center for Science Education described the bill as "clearly in the mold of the recent spate of anti-evolution 'academic freedom' bills". A Public Education Department analysis of the bill found that "[a]lthough the bill's definition of 'scientific information' excludes information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines", the bill "goes on to say that scientific information may have religious or philosophical implications and remain scientific in nature", which led to the conclusion that "this point would allow the teaching of theories of biological origins such as intelligent design or creationism."
On March 21, 2009, the bill died in committee when the legislature adjourned.
Linkage with Expelled film
Pre-release screenings for legislators of the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which portrays proponents of intelligent design as being "persecuted", have been presented by actor Ben Stein. There were special showings for legislators from Florida and Missouri to promote Academic Freedom bills in those states.
The Florida showing was at the invitation of that Florida bill's House sponsor, Representative Alan Hays, on March 12, 2008. It was a private screening restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides. The press and public were excluded. When the House general counsel was asked if that was legal under the Florida Sunshine Law, Hays said that it was technically legal as long as they just watched the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes. Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel previously managing to view the film against the wishes of the film company, House Democratic leader Dan Gelber of Miami Beach said, "It's kind of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled." The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few were legislators, and the majority of legislators stayed away.